Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437- 457]Manoj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437R. Rajesh v. High Court of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 438Sayid Muhammed v The Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 439Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440Kumaran. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 441Sajeesh A v State of Kerala,...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437- 457]
Manoj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
R. Rajesh v. High Court of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
Sayid Muhammed v The Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
Kumaran. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
Sajeesh A v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
Suo Motu v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
Sobin P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
Antony v. Tata Tea Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
Radhakrishnan Nair v CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
Zainul Abideen Karumbil vs. State Of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
RDO and Anr. v. Thomas Daniel and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
Bibin Paulson v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
T.S. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
X v Y, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 453
AA v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
Glister Sachet India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
Suresh v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
Koovatt Laila v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Manoj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
The Kerala High Court has held that a motorbike can qualify as a 'dangerous weapon' under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, if it is used intentionally to cause harm.
Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment interpreting the provision which penalizes the offence of "voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means" in a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner who was convicted for the offence under section 324 of IPC.
Case Title: R. Rajesh v. High Court of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 21) held that the appeal preferred by former MLA R. Rajesh against the criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him for making a 'stinking Facebook post' against a sitting judge, was not maintainable.
The division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was hearing the question of maintainability of the appeal.
Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Accused In Chinese Loan App Money Laundering Case
Case Title: Sayid Muhammed v The Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Kerala High Court recently dismissed the bail plea of Sayid Muhammed, the fifth accused in the alleged Chinese Loan application scam who has been booked for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, dismissed the regular bail application stating that the investigation indicates the clear involvement of the petitioner as well as his active connection with the acquisition of proceeds of crime.
Case Title: Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
While considering a cruelty case lodged against a husband and his kin, the Kerala High Court observed that sole evidence of a domestic violence victim is reliable for conviction in such cases as often ill-treatment and harassment happens within the confines of the house.
Justice Jobin Sebastian underscored that the testimony can be relied on as sole evidence for conviction provided it is convincing and reliable. In the facts of the present case, the high court acquitted the husband, kin in a Section 498-A IPC case, holding that the main allegation of forced abortion was not proved and that other allegations remained unsubstantiated.
Case Title: Kumaran. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
The Kerala High Court has held that a stone need not always be a 'dangerous weapon' for the purpose of attracting the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, observed that it need not always be a dangerous weapon unless used as an instrument for cutting or used as such to be likely to cause death.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Police Official Accused Of Demanding ₹2K Bribe
Case Title: Sajeesh A v State of Kerala
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
The Kerala High Court recently granted regular bail to a Senior Civil Police Officer who was accused under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly accepting bribes.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a prima facie case exists since the mahazar clearly showed that there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
Noting that the accused/petitioner is a first-time offender, who had been in custody since 02.07.2025, and that the investigation is well progressed, the Court granted him conditional bail.
Case Title:Suo Motu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
The Kerala High Court has expanded restrictions on videography and photography within the Sabarimala temple complex, directing the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and police authorities to strictly enforce temple decorum and public safety.
The order, issued by the Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S, comes in response to suo motu proceedings based on a Special Commissioner's report detailing serious breaches of court-imposed restrictions during the Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season.
Police Inaction Against Obstruction Of Lawful Business Violates Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(g): Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sobin P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
The Kerala High Court recently ordered police protection in a plea preferred by a quarry entrepreneur, who was prevented from conducting scientific study in order to start quarry operations.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that “In our country governed by Rule of Law, every citizen has a right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible under law, following the provisions of law. Whether such an avocation/business is to be permitted or not, is for the competent authorities under the State to decide.”
Case Title: Antony v. Tata Tea Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
In its recent judgement, the Kerala High Court has held that the change in name of a company, without any change in its constitution, would not affect the benefit obtained by it from a decree in its favour.
Justice Easwaran S. observed, “The decree passed in favour of the erstwhile company, whose name was the subsequently changed will enure to the benefit of the company inasmuch as there is no change in the constitution and that the name of the entity alone is changed.”
'Prima Facie' Committed The Offence: Kerala High Court Refuses To Discharge Public Servant Accused In Alleged ₹7 Crore Loan Fraud Case
Case Title- Radhakrishnan Nair v CBI
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
While reiterating the legal threshold for discharge under CrPC, the Kerala High Court dismissed the plea of a public servant accused of conspiracy and cheating in respect of Rs 7 crore loan fraud case seeking discharge from offences alleged against him, observing that there a "prima facie" case was made out.
Justice A. Badharudeen, in his judgement affirmed the trial court's decision to proceed with the charges against the petitioner, the then regional manager at SBI, accused of offences punishable under Section 120 B(criminal conspiracy), 409(criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
CaseTitle - Riyas and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
The Kerala High Court has observed that any attack on an advocate for carrying out professional duties poses a direct threat to the rule of law and access to justice. It thus refused anticipatory bail to nine accused in an assault case involving a practicing advocate.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed,“ Assaulting an Advocate for drafting a complaint cannot be viewed lightly. The fundamental right to have access to courts of law is enabled largely through Advocates. If Advocates are attacked for drafting complaints, rule of law will suffer.”
Case title: Zainul Abideen Karumbil vs. State Of Kerala and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 10) dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of one Zainul Abideen Karumbil, accused, along with others, of leaking school examination question papers via a YouTube channel named 'M.S. Solutions'.
A bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, who heard the matter, took note of the serious nature of the allegations and observed that his custodial interrogation is necessary.
Case Title: RDO and Anr. v. Thomas Daniel and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
The Kerala High Court recently held that a sale certificate issued by a bank/revenue authority to an auction purchaser following the sale of immovable property that belonged to a revenue defaulter will not attract the levy of stamp duty.
A Division Bench consisting of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a batch of writ appeals preferred by the government against the Single Bench's decision that held that stamp duty ought not be levied on such sale certificates.
Case Title: Bibin Paulson v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
The Kerala High Court has clarified that it had not, in its suo motu case concerning waste management in the State, prohibited the Magistrates from releasing vehicles seized for illegal waste dumping.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, who was considering the petition, observed that no bar was imposed on the Magistrate in the suo motu case.
Case Title: P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment declaring that debt created by a cash transaction above Rupees Twenty Thousand in violation of the Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961 cannot be considered as a legally enforceable debt unless there is a valid explanation for the same.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that even so, a person accused of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act must challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under Section 139 NI Act.
Case Title: Seema T.S. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
The Kerala High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a lady doctor, who was accused of forging her Post-Graduation diploma certificate and obtaining registration from the Travancore Cochin Medical Council using the forged certificate.
Justice A. Badharudheen observed that “…it is the duty of the court to ensure, in corruption cases in particular that none of the corrupt person, should get liberal relief, so as to perpetuate corruption, taking such cases in a light manner,”
Case Title - X v Y
Citation - 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 453
The Kerala High Court has recently reaffirmed the sanctity of court-mediated settlements while dismissing two matrimonial appeals challenging a compromise decree entered into through mediation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha emphasized that parties cannot be permitted to resile from settlements solemnized through judicial process, cautioning that any such attempts could undermine public trust in the justice system.
Case Title - AA v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
The Kerala High Court recently held that a Registrar of Births and Deaths has no authority to unilaterally alter the paternity details in a birth certificate where the child was born during a valid marriage, without a court order or notice to the lawful father.
Justice C S Dias delivered the judgement where the petitioner challenged a revised birth certificate issued by Payyanur Municipality, without following the procedure established by law.
Kerala High Court Upholds Govt Orders Banning Single-Use Plastic Across State
Case Title: Glister Sachet India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment upholding three state Government Orders (GOs) passed in 2019 banning single-use plastic in the State.
Justice Viju Abraham was considering a batch of writ petitions preferred by Kerala Plastics Manufacturers Associations and several other persons challenging the government orders passed as early as in 2019.
Case Title - Suresh v State of Kerala
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
The Kerala High Court has issued a directive to the State Police, urging immediate and comprehensive reform of investigative practices in line with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. Highlighting the critical need for foolproof investigations in heinous crimes such as murder, the Court called on the State Police to urgently upgrade their investigative capabilities through modern training, updated protocols, and strategic investments in forensic technology.
The Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar made these observations while acquitting a man previously convicted of murder due to glaring investigative lapses.
Case Title - Koovatt Laila v State of Kerala
Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
The Kerala High Court has held that double tax is not leviable after building regularisation, and the assessee is liable to pay tax at the regular rate only.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that “once a regularization came into effect, the liability of the petitioners is to pay the tax at the regular rate, as the said building cannot be treated as unauthorised for that period.”
Other Important Developments This Week
Is A Hindu Wife Entitled To Receive Maintenance From Immovable Property Of Husband? Kerala High Court Refers To Full Bench
Case Title: Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors.
Case No: Mat.Appeal No.1093 of 2014
The Kerala High Court has referred for consideration of the Full Bench the question of entitlement of a Hindu wife to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband.
The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar framed the following questions for consideration by the Full Bench:
"(a) Is a Hindu wife entitled to receive maintenance from the immovable property of her husband dehors the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956?
(b) Is there not an apparent conflict between the views expressed in Vijayan v. Sobhana and Others [LIR 2007 (1) Kerala 822], or Sathiyamma v. Gayathri and Others [2013 (3) KHC 322], Nysha v. P.Suresh Babu (MANU/KE/2266/2019) and Hadiya (Minor) v. Shameera M.M. [2025 (3) KHC 131], and what is the correct law?"
Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(PIL) 87/2025
The Kerala High Court today took suo moto cognizance of a letter addressed to the Chief Justice by around 200 students of SNDP Higher Secondary School, stating that their campus located below sea-level in Kainakary Grama Panchayat in Kuttanad district of Alappuzha has been submerged in water since over a month.
The bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji took up the matter on Wednesday (July 23) and passed an interim order directing the District Collector of the area to call for a joint meeting of the officers concerned.
Case Title - Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors
Case No - SSCR 18/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has stayed a purported order of the Travancore Devaswom Board permitting installation of a Panchaloha idol of Lord Ayyappa at the Sabarimala Temple by a private individual
The division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S, while hearing a Suo motu case initiated on a report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, stayed the order for a period of two weeks.
Case Title: Sumi Joseph v. The Chief Secretary and Connected cases
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 23505 of 2023 and Connected cases
The Kerala High Court has noted that more than 500 cases under the NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act) are pending before the trial courts due to delay in getting reports from the Forensic Science laboratories (FSL).
The Special Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C. Jayachandran was hearing petitions for curbing the drug menace in the State.
Case Title: Kerala State Legal Service Authority v. Government of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) No. 8600 of 2025
The Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) and the University Grants Commission (UGC) have submitted their respective suggestions on the two drafts prepared by the Working Committee, which was constituted to give suggestions for amendment to the Anti-Ragging Act and Rules.
A Special Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C. Jayachandran was considering a petition moved by KeLSA regarding the menace of ragging in the State.
Case Title: Shone George v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 25482/2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 23) issued notice to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena T., and 11 others in a plea preferred by BJP leader Shone George seeking further investigation into the alleged fraudulent transactions between Exalogic Solutions Private Limited and Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL).
The matter was listed before Justice C S Dias
Case title: KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION (KHCAA) v/s STATE OF KERALA & OTHER
Case No: IA No. 4/2025 in WP(PIL) 14/ 2025
The Trivandrum Bar Association has moved the Kerala High Court seeking to implead itself as 4th additional respondent in KHCAA's plea against increased court fees.
As per the affidavit sworn by the Secretary of Trivandrum Bar Association, it is stated that the increased fee is disproportionate to the prevailing inflation rate and that this is an arbitrary enhancement, which constitutes an unnecessary burden on the litigants.